Wanted to be sure everybody got a chance to read this guest blog from Steve Urbanski.
"Ever since my youth --- when I watched WWII footage and saw how well-disciplined and sharply dressed the German forces were --- I have wanted to be a soldier. Joining the American military was as close as I could get." These are the haunting words spoken by Army engineer Jon Fain, who joined the military and fought in the invasion of Iraq.
Unfortunately, he is not alone in today's United States Army. With recruiters struggling to meet enlistment goals, the recruiters have begun looking the other way --- a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" policy on recruits with violent, extremist, and racists views.
Fortunately, someone is doing something about it. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is stepping up the pressure on the Department of Defense to stop allowing the United States military to be a training ground for neo-Nazi and other extremists groups. The SPLC was founded in 1971 as a small civil rights law firm. Today, the Center is internationally known for its tolerance education programs, its legal victories against white supremacists and its tracking of hate groups.
The SPLC has been active in this cause for many years. In 1986, the SPLC, urged then Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger to "prohibit active-duty members of the armed services from holding membership in groups like the Klan or from taking part in their activities." Weinberger responded by issuing this directive: "Military personnel must reject participation in white supremacy, neo-Nazi and other such groups which espouse or attempt to create overt discrimination. Active participation, including public demonstrations, recruiting and training members, and organizing or leading such organizations is utterly incompatible with military service." Former Defense Secretary William Perry used stronger language when he updated the policy during his tenure at the Department of Defense.
The problem we are encountering now is that these directives are being ignored. Commanders in some a Army units have turned a blind eye to the problem. This cannot continue.
Department of Defense investigator Scott Barfield confirmed that the threat is great today. He said: "Today's white supremacists in the military become tomorrow's domestic terrorists once they're out. There needs to be a tighter focus on intercepting the next Timothy McVeigh before he becomes the next Timothy McVeigh. (Referring to the Oklahoma City bomber who was a Gulf War veteran.)"
Comment and Take Action: Contact the SPLC to help.
Great article Steve! Just another example of how the Bush administration is dropping the ball.
Posted by: Norton the Blogger at July 10, 2006 06:24 PMWhy am I not that the SPLC is on the front line -looking after others?
The admirable legacy of the SPLC is one reason I have wanted to be a lawyer since I was a boy. I urge attorneys that read this blog to take this chance to volunteer your time, and I know there is not much of it to go around for anyone - but you have to do what you have to do. At Loyola University in New Orleans they have an active Poverty Law Clinic that does good work for good people in the community. Legal Aid, where my sis works in NYC, also does great work for those most effected by the policies and "look the other way" attitude of some of our "leaders" and citizens, unfortunately. Neo Nazi's and other groups are not welcome in my unit, but we must always be vigilant, like the SPLC, and protect the integrity of our Armed Forces. We are, and will always be, the best this country has to offer, and nothing, and I mean NOTHING will tarnish our reputation.
S/F
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)is a Marxist front group whose ideological world-view echoes that of the Left in the 1930s, when National Socialism was a real threat, namely, that anyone who was not a good little Marxist (that is, a true believer in international socialism) was ipso facto a Fascist (a believer in national socialism). This curious dichotomy rested on the notions that a) socialism was the only true view of the world, and b) because of this, international socialism was the only "good" version of that ideology whereas national socialism was the "bad" version of it. To conclude, if you are a real American, you want to help the American Center for Law and Justice, and NOT the SPLC.
Posted by: George Tomezsko at July 10, 2006 10:37 PMGeorge,
I thought J. Edgar Hoover died in 1972, but he lives on with you. I guess Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks were commies, too.
Posted by: Norton the Blogger at July 10, 2006 10:58 PMSo the George Tomezsko thinks SPLC is a Marxist front group. And for all those years, I thought they were just looking out for the people who can't look out for themselves. When it comes to "real Americans," Morris Dees is on the top of my list. I guess I'm gonna have to send them another donation.
Posted by: Steve at July 10, 2006 11:21 PMOkay now George. You took me away from my studies, so now I want Americans, (All Americans not just the "Real" ones - whatever THAT means) to see the ACLJ's latest foray into the legal world:
http://www.jenner.com/files/tbl_s69NewsDocumentOrder/FileUpload500/208/AmicusCuriae_AmericanCenter_LawJustice_Hamdi.pdf#search='American%20Center%20for%20Law%20and%20Justice'
Just cut and paste this baby into your browser and read.
Now, I'm not going to make a judgement one way or another (the SCOTUS and the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION has already done that for me.)
And I am not judging ACLJ nor knocking Pat Robertson, the founder of the ACLJ either.
As far as I'm concerned there's plenty to knock on both "sides", as Gerry Rafferty sang:
"Clowns to The Left of me - Jokers to The Right -- here I am, stuck in The Middle with you."
(--sorry listening to the Resevoir Dogs soundtrack as I study--had to work that in somehow)
Now George, I challenge you to a freindly game of "I Can-Kinda-Agree-With-That" and find one case that the SPLC took up that you just might agree with. I won't tell you which one of the ACLJ cases I researched, but I did find one I didn't mind.
The moral of this comment is that it takes all of us, our opinions, our brains, our convictions, our hearts and souls, joining together sometimes, and sometimes knocking against each other, to make this country great. You don't have to be in the government to take part in this great Check-and-Balance that is America. Don't forget that, next time you're knocking some one or some group who is not on your "side" but is trying to do some good in this world. Amen.
Posted by: BW at July 10, 2006 11:35 PMDear BW: I stand by my statements. The SPLC has demonstrated an especial ire for Christians who have the audacity to think that unborn babies have the right to life and that traditional marriage is worth defending. In their view of the world, these are evidence of Nazi leanings, and by attempting to pin that label on pro-lifers and supporters of traditional marriage, the goal is clear: to demonize them into silence. So much for its calls for tolerance.
As for your statement that "don't forget that, next time you're knocking some one or some group who is not on your 'side' but is trying to do some good in this world," it all depends on how the term "good" is defined. Humanity has already seen the "good" that Marxism has done, and has rejected it.
The SPLC is a dinosaur.
And by the way, among Southern whites (many of them just as poor as poor blacks, but who never seem to get any positive attention from the SPLC), Morris Dees is known as "Morris Disease." It's a fact. I've seen Southern publications that refer to him that way.
George,
So the SPLC is a dinosaur. How do you explain this:
January 27, 2006 -- An Arizona court this week signed over the 70-acre compound formerly owned by Ranch Rescue vigilante Casey Nethercott to two El Salvadorans he terrorized nearly two years ago.
Documents granting Nethercott's property to Fatima Leiva and Edwin Mancia were signed by a Cochise County judge on Monday.
Nethercott is serving a five-year prison term in Texas stemming from a 2003 incident on a ranch near Hebbronville, Texas, where he and other members of Ranch Rescue confronted Leiva and Mancia.
Found in the brush, the two immigrants were surrounded by men shooting bullets into the air, cursing in Spanish and shouting they would kill them. Mancia was attacked by a 120-pound rottweiler and struck on the head with a gun. Leiva testified that she thought they would be killed.
A jury deadlocked on an assault charge against Nethercott, but he was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He has a history of anti-immigrant activities in Texas, California and Arizona.
The Southern Poverty Law Center sued Nethercott and the Texas ranch owner on behalf of the two immigrants. The owner settled, but Nethercott did not respond, and a Texas judge ordered him to pay judgments totaling $850,000.
Nethercott tried to defraud Leiva and Mancia by signing over his Arizona property to his sister, who lives in the northern part of the state. However, the woman willingly turned over the title when she discovered she was part of a fraudulent conveyance lawsuit.
In 2004, Nethercott bought the land, located near the Mexican border, and transformed it as a training center for Ranch Rescue and, later, the Arizona Guard, another anti-immigrant group he started after splitting from Ranch Rescue.
"He purchased this property along the Mexico border so that he could hunt and terrorize border-crossers on a fulltime basis," said Center attorney Kelley Bruner, who handled the lawsuit. "And now that it is in the hands of our clients, neither he nor his cronies will be able to continue their campaign of terror."
If this is an example of a dinosaur, then I'm a proud to be a dinosaur, too.
Dear Stegie, er Steve:
All this story shows is that the SPLC is fighting the old leftist legal battles of the 1960s, complete with the old 1960s notions of who the heroes and villains are (the big bad old reactionary capitalistic ranch owners vs. those poor lost little Mexican lambs). Unfortunately, out here in reality-ville, America and Americans have moved past that, if in fact they ever embraced those notions at all.
What real Americans (as well as all clinically normal human beings) see in this case are loyal Americans who, because the government had failed to defend our borders, acted in defense of those borders and are now being punished for it.
Moreover, what the public at large does not see (thanks to the SPLC and its allies in the leftist media) is that for every case like this one, there are four or five wherein illegal immigrants and border crossers (apparantly to obtain funds to continue their northward journeys) have assaulted, robbed, or done worse to law-abiding American citizens. By not defending the rights of American citizens, the SPLC, BY ITS OWN ACTIONS, has condemned itself to irrelevance and dinosaurdom.
And as for your statement that "the Southern Poverty Law Center sued Nethercott and the Texas ranch owner on behalf of the two immigrants. The owner settled, but Nethercott did not respond, and a Texas judge ordered him to pay judgments totaling $850,000," we real Americans see that as an unjust act of legal theft with an implicit warning aimed at all Americans who want to stop illegal immigration. Needless to say, we will not be deterred. The SPLC's day is done, whether Morrie and company like it or not.
Posted by: George Tomezsko at July 13, 2006 12:51 PMGeorge why don't you just crawl back into the 19th Century and fight the damn Irish, Italians, and Polish from taking over "our" country. or for that matter why don't you just join an Indian tribe and throw us all out "your" country.
Posted by: harold at July 13, 2006 03:04 PMGeorge,
Let me get this straight. Nethercott and his buddies beat the crap out of two innocent people, SPLC sues on the innocent people's behalf, they get a judgment, and that is "an unjust act of legal theft?" What happens when a judge sentences someone to jail for killing an illegal alien, is that just "those damn liberal judges making law?"
Posted by: Norton the Blogger at July 21, 2006 03:25 PMAccording to an EO advisor I know, this is something that is occuring and it burns him because of the standards we are used to. He can't comment any further, but what little he said on the matter spoke volumes.
Posted by: joe at August 2, 2006 12:02 AMI know that the US military questions any tattoos that may be linked to nazi groups. A close friend joined a branch and was grilled about a stupid tattoo he got on his shoulder that had no meaning. That was in 2000. I have no firsthand knowledge of today.
Let's not forget that there are documented accounts of gang activity in the US military in Iraq. I don't have time to search now but take a look. What better place to get "free" urban close-quarters combat training?
Posted by: Steve at August 2, 2006 08:41 AMThey do question the them about thier tattoos Steve. For instance, if someone submits a package for promotion, not only must they have an explanation for every tattoo, but they also must submit photos of each tattoo. There was a boy I went through bootcamp with who didn't graduate because investigation of his tattoos uncovered gang affiliation and a criminal record. Now, while some join to turn over a new leaf, others do not and I hope we can tell whoevers listening that lowering the standards is not the way to go. Thanks for writing about this.
Posted by: joe at August 2, 2006 11:35 AMUnfortunately, the ranks of the PA National Guard in Anbar were rife with white supremacists and neo-nazis. It wasn't just the "waiver" kids, but longtime members of the Guard.
Throughout my years in the USMC, I never once heard the painful Jew hatred that I confronted in the Guard. I recall once, after a patrol, several members of a platoon presaging Mel Gibson in the old canard that "Jews cause all wars."
At their worst, they engaged in the worst slurs, at one point telling me that "all Jews should burn in the ovens like rats."
I actually became quite ashamed to be in the battalion, and wondered if many of the atrocities in Iraq are tied more to our national legacies of racism and bigotry than the sins of poor training, combat stress or sociopaths in our ranks.
Posted by: Carl at August 2, 2006 07:25 PMYou make an excellent, but sad point. The best thing to do as platoon leaders is to squash it when you hear it. At MCT we were on a bus to a training site and some guys were feeling really comfortable with each other and forgot the company they were in. They were kids, maybe the oldest was 20. The worst thing to do is to let those words slide. We didn't let it and they learned to keep their prejudices to themselves. We all depend on each other there and it is horrible for morale if it is allowed. Hopefully, with the light being shined on this problem by people like Steve who talk about it, more can be done to stifle this type of hateful, immature behavior. Excellent comments Carl. Semper Fi. and Hoo-ah!
Posted by: joe at August 2, 2006 10:34 PMThank you for your service, Carl. In response to your statement-
"...and wondered if many of the atrocities in Iraq are tied more to our national legacies of racism and bigotry than the sins of poor training, combat stress or sociopaths in our ranks."
- hopefully you're finding that it's the latter, OR that within every 100,000 people there are going to be some defective people, sociopaths, and/or criminals. One would hope that percentage would be less for the military than the overall population, but it's going to happen.
A guy that sounds interesting is a former PLO terrorist (google: Walid Shoebat) who read up on history of the Jewish people and decided that he'd been misled about Jews and had the "eureka moment" a lot of people seem to need. Hitler himself would envy the system that exists to indoctrinate middle-eastern people with anti-semitism. Truthful history lessons might help a lot of the world's problems right now.
On the immigration thing, I love how people like Harold make the argument that nobody except ethnic Native Americans can make judgements on who stays or goes. What if my DNA is traced to Kennewick Man? I guess that would give me some overarching moral authority.
That's a straw man argument but the real reason that people like me question the level of illegal immigration is because the argument over the strain on already-bloated nanny-state programs by an unchecked flow of new arrivals is huge.
Posted by: Steve H at August 3, 2006 09:59 AMI don't think Harold is making the argument that only Native American's can make judgements on who stays or goes, it sounds like he is giving a different perspective to the conversation that many don't see for the sake of discussion; Walid Shoebat may understand this, as he also was exposed to a different perspective and had his eureka moment. It takes many voices to sort through this, and to find our way back to stability, and sometimes looking at things from a different angle makes things look different. I don't think the "Give America Back" Lobby has much traction, so there is nothing to worry about there.
As the great Jimmy Buffett would say.
"Changes in latitudes, changes in attitudes"
"and sometimes looking at things from a different angle makes things look different"
no duh-definitely not a shakespeare moment but ya'll know what I'm saying i hope.
Posted by: Heinz57 at August 3, 2006 04:51 PM